Point taken, Marag, but they are still males who are not strictly XY. I think my original statement is sufficiently backed up with the other two links, though. I can provide additional evidence if requested. I'm at work at the moment but I'll respond once I get home this afternoon.

edit: Oops, just realized you were probably not addressing me. Carry on.

I think the other two links are fair enough, no need to expand on that, but my grip with the Klinefelter is that what matter in "maleness" is the Y chromossome, not necessarily the XY combination, which is of course the standard combination but like said what defines the male is the presence of Y. So yeah, you could say that Klinefelter disproves that male sex=XY necessarily, but it still have a full male chromossome so it's not a good example like the XX male.

Or maybe I'm just nitpicking on details that doesn't matter, but anyway.

edit: I was adressing both you and inhumanist, though in different posts

_________________

Acrobat wrote:

it's better to have Lemmed and lost than to have never Lemmed at all..

As a side note, I remember reading that YY is a nonviable combination but can't find a good source saying so at the moment. Also an example for Marag's statement that plenty of things that can stop sperm production is chemotherapy.

I am wondering about the total incidence of all these kinds of syndromes. It matters because it seems rare enough that while thinking of sex as a binary is flawed and an oversimplification, but one which is accurate for the vast majority of people. This could cause inaccurate beliefs to be quite persistent.

As a side note, I remember reading that YY is a nonviable combination but can't find a good source saying so at the moment.

That's because the X chromossome contains a lot of vital genetic information, while Y is pretty much only to give masculine characteristics.I think there was a syndrome where the person has XYY though, but I don't remember it's name.

_________________

Acrobat wrote:

it's better to have Lemmed and lost than to have never Lemmed at all..

As a side note, I remember reading that YY is a nonviable combination but can't find a good source saying so at the moment.

That's because the X chromossome contains a lot of vital genetic information, while Y is pretty much only to give masculine characteristics.I think there was a syndrome where the person has XYY though, but I don't remember it's name.

As children grow through puberty they can develop characteristics of one sex more than another, different to the sex they have been assigned as a baby

rarely is anything in nature black and white

Quote:

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects

You're still genetically male, you will never be able to give birth nor will you ever have a period. Believing that you are now female doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Another reason (and this is more a personal reason) I dislike them is because I kind of think it's disgusting that this "woman" was once a man and now he still looks like a man, sounds like a man. I know there are some who don't.

Some people don't define being female by ability to reproduce or menstruate. Hell, by that definition, I'm not female and I'm pretty sure my birth certificate says "female" on it (I don't menstruate and can't get pregnant due to health problems and medications). By your logic, an infertile woman is not actually a woman. Nor is, say, a dancer or athlete with low body fat, which can cause menstruation to cease. I know that wasn't really what you were saying, but I am just pointing out that certainly, many women do not define themselves by their ability to conceive or to menstruate. Gender is a more social construction. A transperson may want to be treated socially as a different gender. If it doesn't directly affect you, I don't see why it's a big problem.

Personally, I don't give a shit, I think people should do what they want with their bodies and whatever makes them happy. I also don't like the gender binary very much and think it causes a lot of problems.

As for metal, I've seen a lot of homophobia. I'm sure much of it is just posturing, but I do see some parts of the "metal community" as homophobic, and I'm sure the same segments are probably transphobic as well.

You're still genetically male, you will never be able to give birth nor will you ever have a period. Believing that you are now female doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Another reason (and this is more a personal reason) I dislike them is because I kind of think it's disgusting that this "woman" was once a man and now he still looks like a man, sounds like a man. I know there are some who don't.

Some people don't define being female by ability to reproduce or menstruate. Hell, by that definition, I'm not female and I'm pretty sure my birth certificate says "female" on it (I don't menstruate and can't get pregnant due to health problems and medications). By your logic, an infertile woman is not actually a woman. Nor is, say, a dancer or athlete with low body fat, which can cause menstruation to cease. I know that wasn't really what you were saying, but I am just pointing out that certainly, many women do not define themselves by their ability to conceive or to menstruate. Gender is a more social construction. A transperson may want to be treated socially as a different gender. If it doesn't directly affect you, I don't see why it's a big problem.

I'm glad you realise that wasn't what I meant, this is a bit off topic but if people think they are different to what they actually are born as, where do you draw the line? If someone is born and they think they're a horse or something, (I believe it's called lyncantrophy), does this then mean they are not humans because they believe they are not?

I'm pretty sure you can draw that line at, ya know, humanity. Your slippery slope argument would fit snugly in the "if we let guys marry guys, what's to stop women from marrying horses and little people from marrying rabid squirrels!! WHERE DOES IT END!?!" line of not-thinking.

A better question, maybe, is why should you generally draw a line anywhere? What use is it?

Sure, in everyday life, definitions of a person's sex are necessary for many practical purposes. And that's fine, unless the said person is a butthurt freak or a PC fanatic, in which case the aforementioned is a better definition than anything pertaining to the genitalia; people use words such as "man", "woman", "aunt", "mister", "miss", etc. in everyday life, and someone getting a knot in the knickers should examine his/her/its own priorities first. However, what is the use of "drawing a line" in a more strict sense? Is it needed for some legal purposes? Probably, in which case things like social security numbers, medical insurance things, etc. need to be decided by tweaking the laws, if necessary. But in other respects, "drawing a line" always reeks of meddling in other people's lives, and I don't see any good reasons to limit the freedom of those who may wish to define themselves or their sexuality in a different way, as long as it harms no-one else. Say, if someone wants to get a sex-change surgery; please go ahead if that's what you really want, but don't make me pay for it through taxes or something. It's not my business, and as long as you don't make it my business, I'm cool with it. Your body, your decision. Or if someone wants to wear the opposite sex' clothes; go ahead, although I would sure appreciate it if you told me in advance about it if you're in a situation where it might be useful information to me... Let's not go into specifics here... But this is what liberty and freedom of the individual are about in the end: even if someone dislikes the way one displays sexual orientation or bends definitions, it's the person's own choice, and that should be respected as long as it's not harmful to others.

Also, being offended should be seen as freedom rather than something to be avoided via the means of other people's freedom. It's been said by many people, not least by some stand-up comedians in various ways, that being offended is allowed, but NOT a reason to limit the liberties of others. There might be a series of thin lines between being repulsive, being offensive, and turning out to be outright harassing nuisance, but "drawing lines" should not be done based on the first two. That said, the ancient The Onion article about a flamboyant Gay Pride parade setting back the people's opinions about gays roughly two decades is a valid piece... And yet, the LGBT community still should have the freedom to have them, it's their own choice.

These things are, of course, cultural, and a person raised by bigots is likely going to be a bigot, and screw freedom. I've explained the hetero-homosexual spectrum to my kids, without going into the penetration issues, and told them that it's no reason to discriminate against anyone, and that it does no harm to anyone. I don't think this kind of discussions are too common in Russian families, though...

In other words, don't draw an unnecessary line unless you really need it for some purpose.

According to biologists, 7+/- billion of us have descended from the first creatures that crawled(?) upon the earth, how can this continuum produce only people who are strictly male or female? (regarding brain chemistry)

According to biologists, 7+/- billion of us have descended from the first creatures that crawled(?) upon the earth, how can this continuum produce only people who are strictly male or female? (regarding brain chemistry)

I suppose there is a fine line. Hetersexual man goes to prison, engages in homosexual sex. Heterosexual male is born poor in S-E Asia (specifically Thailand and the Philippines), takes female hormones and gets breast enhancement surgery to make money via prostitution. One's sexuality is fleeting.

_________________I am a Chinese lady with a pair of big water eyes under the long eyelashes.I don't know how beautiful i am , but people usually say that I needn't do face-painting.

I'm pretty sure you can draw that line at, ya know, humanity. Your slippery slope argument would fit snugly in the "if we let guys marry guys, what's to stop women from marrying horses and little people from marrying rabid squirrels!! WHERE DOES IT END!?!" line of not-thinking.

But why should we draw the line there? If a guy wants to be a horse, let him be a horse. It doesn't effect you or anyone else so why should we do it?

I suppose there is a fine line. Hetersexual man goes to prison, engages in homosexual sex. Heterosexual male is born poor in S-E Asia (specifically Thailand and the Philippines), takes female hormones and gets breast enhancement surgery to make money via prostitution. One's sexuality is fleeting.

Those are really shitty examples that don't actually contribute anything to the topic. Just like this post. Oh the irony.

I was merely referring to how this topic is about self-realization and not prison rape and prostitution, but if my tone wasn't appropriate I apologize. I also guess my post could be considered mini-modding, so sorry about that.

I suppose there is a fine line. Hetersexual man goes to prison, engages in homosexual sex. Heterosexual male is born poor in S-E Asia (specifically Thailand and the Philippines), takes female hormones and gets breast enhancement surgery to make money via prostitution. One's sexuality is fleeting.

Those are really shitty examples that don't actually contribute anything to the topic. Just like this post. Oh the irony.

I was merely responding to something someone had written. I am sorry that it upset you so much, that was not the intention.

_________________I am a Chinese lady with a pair of big water eyes under the long eyelashes.I don't know how beautiful i am , but people usually say that I needn't do face-painting.

I suppose there is a fine line. Hetersexual man goes to prison, engages in homosexual sex. Heterosexual male is born poor in S-E Asia (specifically Thailand and the Philippines), takes female hormones and gets breast enhancement surgery to make money via prostitution. One's sexuality is fleeting.

Hmm not many heterosexuals (0 on the Kinsey scale) would engage willingly with another man I bet. In Midnight Express, Billy Hayes (Brad Davis - RIP 1991 ) thought about it, being isolated for so long, but it wasn't in him so he declined the other guys advances, was the film saying something about sexuality and time spent apart from the opposite sex? ; you cannot have feelings unless they've always been there, however dormant?

You have a point about people changing sexuality to make a living though, I hadn't thought of that angle, aren't they extreme cases though, bought about by poverty, and not really relevant to a general discussion about TS?

I suppose there is a fine line. Hetersexual man goes to prison, engages in homosexual sex. Heterosexual male is born poor in S-E Asia (specifically Thailand and the Philippines), takes female hormones and gets breast enhancement surgery to make money via prostitution. One's sexuality is fleeting.

Hmm not many heterosexuals (0 on the Kinsey scale) would engage willingly with another man I bet. In Midnight Express, Billy Hayes (Brad Davis - RIP 1991 ) thought about it, being isolated for so long, but it wasn't in him so he declined the other guys advances, was the film saying something about sexuality and time spent apart from the opposite sex? ; you cannot have feelings unless they've always been there, however dormant?

You have a point about people changing sexuality to make a living though, I hadn't thought of that angle, aren't they extreme cases though, bought about by poverty, and not really relevant to a general discussion about TS?

Yeah, a man who fucks another man in prison doesn't mean he's necessarily become gay, it means that buttholes are the only available orifices. It's kind of like a closeted gay who marries a woman and fucks her, while still thinking about men during sex. Sexual activity is not the same thing as sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is who you are attracted to, not who you fuck. Likewise, a shepherd out in the middle of nowhere might fuck a sheep because it's the only orifice that's available.

I've seen documentaries on those people in Thailand, young men who take hormones, and in those, a lot of them seemed to want to be girls. I'd suggest that prostitution might be a way for some of them to realize this goal, though some very desperate, girly looking boys might also go that route. But even that wouldn't mean their sexuality is "fleeting," but rather, that desperate times call for desperate measures. Possibly relevant: Richard Speck after he went to prison. He was there for crimes against women, but when he got there, he took hormones, grew breasts and was treated as a woman. Some have speculated it was a way to atone for his crimes or a way to get more cigarettes and not get killed.

Actually trannies don't just make the decision on a whim because their sexuality is so fleeting, they do it because their sense of gender and sexuality is NOT fleeting and they don't think it matches up with how the world perceives them.

Why is this even something to be discussed?What you've got between your legs is entirely irrelevant to what kind of music you play, what you wear, who you can fuck or fall in love with, and most other things really. And you can be confident that anyone who thinks otherwise isn't someone worth your time or attention anyway.

Say, if someone wants to get a sex-change surgery; please go ahead if that's what you really want, but don't make me pay for it through taxes or something. It's not my business, and as long as you don't make it my business, I'm cool with it. Your body, your purpose

You make it sound like they wake up one morning and say what shall I do today.. People having surgery may have agonised for years over the decission, and felt alienated by their own body. When some people were born, doctors made the decission what sex they should be (in physical appearance for a birth certificate), years later as teenagers they may have finally managed to convince the doctors they made the wrong decission, could they be expected to afford $50,000 (?) or more.I don't think doctors will operate unless the patient has had a couple of years at least of counselling, and assessment. If the reasons are genuine (as best can be ascertained) then the procedure is as important to that person as someone needing treatment for any other condition which prevents them living a normal life, as normal as possible (and paying taxes!).This is one instance I don't mind tax payers money helping someone feel better able to function in society, billions of taxes are spent on other highly questionable activities that result in great loss of life without any compunction (not to mention the ever more creative ways to keep tabs on us and curtail our ever shrinking freedoms - all funded by us, the tax payer ).

Quote:

Sex changes on the NHS, which cost around £10,000 each, became a right in 1999 after the Appeal Court recognised that those who believed they were born into the wrong body were suffering from a legitimate illness.

In the case of a chromosomal anomaly, I support a potential sex change operation. The doctor rolls the dice while the meat slab is in its infancy.There's really a 50/50 chance if that meat slab will grow up to function like the rest of the meat slabs on this planet. However in Keith Kaputos case, I do not support his decision at all. Sure we're entitled to do whatever we want with our money, but it does not mean that we are making the right decisions. He was a perfectly functional, normal and healthy looking male and I feel should spent more time in counseling before making such a drastic change to his body. As he is now, he's not a convincing female whatsoever, and could have easily kept his genitalia while maintaining a more feminine appearance.

just saying that there are alternatives to butchering ones flesh and constructing artificial orifices. I personally don't support it, but I have no say in the matter since I'm just one of the seven billion socially advanced meat slabs on this planet. He's entitled to do whatever he wants, I just don't support it. If it's not coming out of my tax dollars, it doesn't concern me anyway. However, I still would not advise one to get this surgery.

If it's not coming out of my tax dollars, it doesn't concern me anyway. However, I still would not advise one to get this surgery.

There are a lot of good reasons the government doesn't ask you for permission on how to use every one of your tax dollars, and one of the many is that you're not a qualified medical professional. Guess what: the decision to undergo such "butchering" surgeries are between doctors and patients. Your opinion doesn't come into it, whether or not your tax dollars are involved.

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

If it's not coming out of my tax dollars, it doesn't concern me anyway. However, I still would not advise one to get this surgery.

There are a lot of good reasons the government doesn't ask you for permission on how to use every one of your tax dollars, and one of the many is that you're not a qualified medical professional. Guess what: the decision to undergo such "butchering" surgeries are between doctors and patients. Your opinion doesn't come into it, whether or not your tax dollars are involved.

This is true, but just because the government is going to use your tax dollars in this way doesn't mean you have to like it. Here, if you want the operation it has to come out of your own pocket. Just wondering (I'm assuming you're from the US) but why does the govt play for this? Isn't it more of a personal thing rather than a illness?

Your opinion here seems unnecessarily harsh and guided by a set of morals which actively misunderstands the matter. Your word choice, though technically accurate, is too emotional and unsympathetic to be considered even remotely professional.

_________________Incidentally, Ruben Rosas has very nice handwriting. The soul of a poet, one might say.

This is true, but just because the government is going to use your tax dollars in this way doesn't mean you have to like it. Here, if you want the operation it has to come out of your own pocket. Just wondering (I'm assuming you're from the US) but why does the govt play for this? Isn't it more of a personal thing rather than a illness?

No, it is a form of illness. I'm semi-familiar with someone who's currently going through the process of having a sex change, and there is a term for the illness itself, though I can't remember what it is. It's stupidly, so I'll feel dumb for not remembering it.

_________________Life is your worst enemy.

Wolfgong wrote:

By the way I am straight and male and get a kick outta tricking chicks to get into their pussy

This is true, but just because the government is going to use your tax dollars in this way doesn't mean you have to like it. Here, if you want the operation it has to come out of your own pocket. Just wondering (I'm assuming you're from the US) but why does the govt play for this? Isn't it more of a personal thing rather than a illness?

No, it is a form of illness. I'm semi-familiar with someone who's currently going through the process of having a sex change, and there is a term for the illness itself, though I can't remember what it is. It's stupidly, so I'll feel dumb for not remembering it.

_________________Life is your worst enemy.

Wolfgong wrote:

By the way I am straight and male and get a kick outta tricking chicks to get into their pussy

it's Gender Identity Disorder, or Gender Dysphoria, don't remember exactly, but it's not always considered a mental illness by authorities

Well, the diagnosis is being updated significantly for the DSM-V. But regardless, what's more relevant to the discussion is that in general the treatment for this kind of dysphoria is transition, medical or otherwise. In other words, it's anything but cosmetic.

There are a lot of good reasons the government doesn't ask you for permission on how to use every one of your tax dollars, and one of the many is that you're not a qualified medical professional.

This, coming from someone whom I recall defending the absolutely insane US health care/health non-care insurance fraud system, is a bolt out of the blue in this context. I'm a bit shocked, to be honest.

However...

Curing mental/psychological problems with surgery does not seem to me as a sensible solution. Sure, I agree with people's definitions, opinions, freedoms, and whatnot in this case. Do what you want, I don't care. But the tax money issue is something I do think is a (very, very minor) issue for me. I'd equate this with people with body integrity identity disorder, no matter how wrong the equation might be. Why should public money be used for such a purpose? The bodies in each case are essentially healthy, as far as an "engineer" approach to medical issues is concerned. There is nothing wrong in the body, the problem lies within the mind. And I don't think "happiness", a vague term in itself, has never been a target of the surgical profession. That's more in the area of psychology, and even in this extreme case, the professionals in that area are certainly better equipped to deal with this.

It's virtually impossible to discuss this without 6 hours of disposable time around a table, 6 liters of wine, and a few cases of beer, considering the difficulty of even formulating a proper question on it first. I'd argue equating this with general body modification first, as far as the discussion on the tax money (truly a minor issue, mind you) is concerned, and if the counter argument was "happiness" and/or "thriving", my argument would be "lobotomy", and yours would be "Hitler". And, right there, you can see that we'd run out of booze...